Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why We Think There's a Multiverse, Not Just Our Universe

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the because-the-drake-equation-needs-another-term dept.

Space 458

An anonymous reader writes "It's generally accepted that the Universe's history is best described by the Big Bang model, with General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory as the physical laws governing the underlying framework. It's also accepted that the Universe probably started off with an early period of cosmic inflation prior to that. Well, if you accept those things — as in, the standard picture of the Universe — then a multiverse is an inevitable consequence of the physics of the early Universe, and this article explains why that's the case."

cancel ×

458 comments

You mean (3, Funny)

deodiaus2 (980169) | about 6 months ago | (#45929269)

That there is a universe out there where Sarah Palin is President.

Re: You mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929297)

That there is a universe out there where Sarah Palin is President.

There's a universe out there where deodiaus2 is President.

Re: You mean (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 months ago | (#45929529)

And I would absolutely live in that universe, because pot would probably already be legal there.

Re: You mean (3, Informative)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 6 months ago | (#45929565)

Honestly... some random guy off the internet couldn't do much worse of a job then most of the morons we put in office.

Re: You mean (4, Funny)

Delarth799 (1839672) | about 6 months ago | (#45929835)

And in some universe they would resent that because the politicians there do their jobs

Re: You mean (5, Funny)

quenda (644621) | about 6 months ago | (#45929837)

The President is very much a figurehead - he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the party caucus, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.

On those criteria Sarah Palin is one of the most successful Presidents the Multiverse has ever had.

Re: You mean (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929779)

Jesus! Your asshole is talented! It's sucking out all my cock's tadpoles at the speed of light!

Re:You mean (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929313)

That universe was destroyed by the Living Tribunal as Too Stupid to Survive.

Well now you've gone and upset my digestion. (-1, Flamebait)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 6 months ago | (#45929325)

What next? A governor that blocks highways as political reprisal?

Re:Well now you've gone and upset my digestion. (-1, Offtopic)

Mashiki (184564) | about 6 months ago | (#45929697)

Since you've already got president that has increased the number of people without health insurance to a greater total than before Obamacare came into existence, I suppose it's possible.

Re:Well now you've gone and upset my digestion. (1)

cHiphead (17854) | about 6 months ago | (#45929813)

Rising health insurance prices were doing that anyway, with or without Obamacare. At least pre-existing conditions are covered now when people do get insurance.

Re:You mean (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 6 months ago | (#45929327)

on tonight episode of sliders

Re:You mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929427)

What if you could travel to parallel worlds?
The same year, the same Earth, only different dimensions?

Re:You mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929503)

I would be banging your mom in that too.

Re:You mean (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929713)

on tonight episode of sliders

I slidered my penis into your mom!

Even with a great big mouthful of DICK her grammar is still better than yours. Seriously, you suck. You write at about a kindergarten level. It's difficult to make sense of what the fuck you are trying to say most of the time. You should really do something about that. Maybe some remedial literacy classes would help. Check your local public library, they might even do it for free!

Re:You mean (1)

overpar (987020) | about 6 months ago | (#45929359)

Well I never got to fill out an application. That's why I'm here.

Re:You mean (2)

anagama (611277) | about 6 months ago | (#45929401)

Call in Fraa Jad -- he can fix it.

Re: You mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929561)

There are an infinite number of universes where she is president, and an infinite number where she is not president.

Re:You mean (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929601)

> That there is a universe out there where Sarah Palin is President.

Yep. That's the universe where the Nazis have a hidden base on the moon.

Re:You mean (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929767)

You fools! She can see the moon FROM ALASKA!

Re:You mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929773)

That there is a universe out there where Sarah Palin is President.

Oh is it still trendy to hate on her? Gots to show everyone how sophisticated and "with it" you are, amirite?

First? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929281)

Only in this multiverse.

multi-options (0)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 6 months ago | (#45929295)

multiverse: one where there is a God. one where there's not. more to come.

Re: multi-options (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929411)

In none of them is a god. Just in none of them is an actual tooth fairy stealing lost teeth for a coin.

Re: multi-options (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929679)

Actually if there are near near infinite numbers of stars in near infinite galaxies, in near infinite time, in near infinite universes with near infinite differences in the laws of their physics there must necessarily be a set larger than zero of realities that are governed by what we consider God.

Re: multi-options (0)

Mashiki (184564) | about 6 months ago | (#45929681)

Here's the problem with that line of thinking. In those multiverses, there is just in as much an equal chance that the tooth fairy exists. That robots have already risen up and enslaved mankind, and no life ever evolved on earth.

Re: multi-options (1)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 6 months ago | (#45929751)

If we didn't think there was a multiverse, we would be living in that universe instead.

Re:multi-options (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929823)

You mean like heaven, hell and this one? Sounds like multiverses to me...

So it's turtles all the way across. (5, Insightful)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 6 months ago | (#45929307)

But the turtles appear out of nowhere and are very far apart.
Why do cosmological theories of any merit always sound like they were written by Douglas Adams?

Re:So it's turtles all the way across. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929531)

I like turtles.

Re:So it's turtles all the way across. (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 6 months ago | (#45929719)

I like turtle soup.

Because its funny how we keep finding order (1)

Marrow (195242) | about 6 months ago | (#45929649)

within chaos and then go "Wrong again!! Oh thats just brilliant!." Or something like that.

Re:So it's turtles all the way across. (1, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about 6 months ago | (#45929757)

Why do cosmological theories of any merit always sound like they were written by Douglas Adams?

The answer is simple -

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
  Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. "
  - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), by William Shakespeare

Re:So it's turtles all the way across. (1)

CanadianMacFan (1900244) | about 6 months ago | (#45929791)

And all turtles in the nine or ten other dimensions too!

Re:So it's turtles all the way across. (2)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 6 months ago | (#45929861)

Why do cosmological theories of any merit always sound like they were written by Douglas Adams?

Because Douglas Adams was a genius in all ways possible.

Not the quantum mechanical multiverse (5, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 6 months ago | (#45929309)

Note that this isn't talking about the quantum mechanical multiverse where whenever a decoherence occurs you get branching of different copies. This is talking about a more concrete notion of multiverse where the early inflation spreads out so much that there are lots of little regions of observable space time which cannot observe each other.

Re:Not the quantum mechanical multiverse (4, Interesting)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 6 months ago | (#45929369)

And, since you might RTFA and I am certainly too lazy, are they proposing differing cosmological constants for these various regions, or more or less identical universes just starting with a different energy soup?

Re:Not the quantum mechanical multiverse (5, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 6 months ago | (#45929461)

From TFA:

Now, the story I’ve told you is a conservative one. In this version of the story, the fundamental constants are the same in all the different regions of the multiverse, and the other Universes have the same laws of physics—with the same quantum vacuum and all—as our own. But most of what you hear about the multiverse these days are from people who have speculated much farther than that.

They don't discuss any of the ideas about differing constants although others have done so.

Re:Not the quantum mechanical multiverse (1)

deodiaus2 (980169) | about 6 months ago | (#45929491)

Yea, sort of missed that. Got that now.

Can we just call it a "partitioned universe" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929329)

or something less stupid, instead?

It doesn't make any sense to say that it's one big thing, but not one big thing at the same time.

Kind of like saying it's not one big cake sliced into wedges, it's lots of little cakes that have nothing to do with each other.

AND YET THEY OCCUPY THE SAME PLATTER.

Re: Can we just call it a "partitioned universe" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929431)

The cake is a lie.

Re:Can we just call it a "partitioned universe" (5, Insightful)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | about 6 months ago | (#45929451)

The problem lies in the name 'UNIverse'.
You can not name something universe and then have something next to it.

Re:Can we just call it a "partitioned universe" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929497)

Why not? You can have chocolate cake, layered cake, upside-down cake, fruitcake, ice-cream cake, etc.

Just 'cause it's multi-part cake, that don't make it a big fake.

Re:Can we just call it a "partitioned universe" (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 6 months ago | (#45929533)

or something less stupid, instead?

It doesn't make any sense to say that it's one big thing, but not one big thing at the same time.

Kind of like saying it's not one big cake sliced into wedges, it's lots of little cakes that have nothing to do with each other.

AND YET THEY OCCUPY THE SAME PLATTER.

Yes, and we call that platter... the multiverse, so we can discuss the cake we inhabit. Which is quite moist and delicious, by the way.

Get used to it.

The platter is one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929793)

The cake many! It would make more sense the other way.

Re:Can we just call it a "partitioned universe" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929771)

"Universe" has just become the name for "our cake". It's done, no sense in changing it now. "Multiverse" is now "the platter".

Observable universe (5, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | about 6 months ago | (#45929789)

I thought there were already concise terms for it. The universe IS the multiverse / partitioned universe. The part that we are in is called observable universe.

Re:Can we just call it a "partitioned universe" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929853)

It IS just one big thing, you'd just have to travel faster than light to get to the other areas or even see them. Multiverse is a terrible description since it makes you think of this. The idea is simply that there might just be other area of the universe we can't see so we don't know about them.

Re:Can we just call it a "partitioned universe" (1)

quenda (644621) | about 6 months ago | (#45929855)

It doesn't make any sense to say that it's one big thing, but not one big thing at the same time.

Why not? Its been working just fine for Christians since the 2nd century with the Trinity. Call it a Holy Mystery of the universe.

Re:Can we just call it a "partitioned universe" (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 6 months ago | (#45929891)

AND YET THEY OCCUPY THE SAME PLATTER.

That's the key, it's different platters. One cake may have eggs and the other doesn't have eggs. Or, in the universes theory, one may have gravity as we understand it, and another may have it slightly different, or not at all. Certain realities about our universe, like the distance of a circle's diameter to it's radius, may be different in other universes.

We cannot understand how this could actually be so, seeing as how we live in this universe, but the mathematical properties at their roots, could be altered, in theory, to create a whole entire set of circumstances that give rise to a completely set of 'things'. it's purely mathematical theory, and should never be interpreted to mean that these other universes would matter to us, but to exclude the possibility of them, is outright wrong, mathematically.

multiverse vs time travel (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929339)

A common theory of time travel is that you can only time-travel between universes via DAG (directed, acyclic graph). This resolves the grandfather paradox, because it's impossible for you to go back in time in your original universe and kill your original grandfather. In other words, you were born in a universe where another you didn't travel back in time and kill your grandfather.

Re: MODERATOR ABUSE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929657)

Why is this -1?

Re: MODERATOR ABUSE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929829)

Why is this -1?

Shut up, or you'll get the same grade.

And your mother wears army boots

Not quite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929347)

Why would I accept a hypothesis that cannot be tested?

I Quit... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929353)

I mean really...I can't read any of these articles by physicists without thinking "Man, these guys need to lay off the ganja". I'm an engineer and pretty smart by certain standards, but if someone came up to me and started talking to me about the content of TFA then I'd have to mace them and call the police to bring them back to Happydale. It may make complete physical and mathematical sense, but the explanations just sound lunatic to my untrained ears.

I think the next greatest feat in physics will not be a new discovery, but just figuring out how to explain the current state of knowledge to a high school student. How can the field progress if only a handful of people actually understand the information we now possess?

Re:I Quit... (3, Insightful)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 6 months ago | (#45929543)

I think the next greatest feat in physics will not be a new discovery, but just figuring out how to explain the current state of knowledge to a high school student. How can the field progress if only a handful of people actually understand the information we now possess?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying we should only pursue theories and bodies of knowledge if the average idiot can understand them? I'm sure you'll agree that if it makes sense for physics, it makes sense for all areas, including... engineering.

So say goodbye to television, GPS (oops, there's some relativity physics in that too), computers of all sorts, and possibly even non-electronic internal combustion engines.

I'm willing to continue relying on people who deal in knowledge I don't understand, as long as I'm satisfied they're constrained by peers who are incented to find flaws in their arguments to keep them honest.

Hell, most people don't understand what *I* do for a living, and I'm just a senior manager in healthcare information systems.

Re:I Quit... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929659)

Of course that's not what he's saying. He wants to radically improve education so that a smart high school student can understand modern physics. Like on star trek.

Re:I Quit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929821)

I posted this comment. Not sure why this was modded -1; I was a bit snarky but I think it discusses a valid point.

High schoolers get (and some understand) F = ma, and that works (to a certain extent) in most engineering applications.

The problem is, F=ma doesn't cover all the bases. The above mentioned relativity for GPS satellites for instance. How many high schools are teaching relativity?

There is a huge disparity between what the cutting edge of our civilazation understands and what is actually being taught to the next generation. And that divide is growing, not shrinking. Relativity was posited as a theory over a century ago. How many people truly get it today, in 2014.

And to dismiss it as "the average high-schooler is an idiot" doesn't advance the civilization (yeah, I'm looking at you, DexterIsADog).

Big Bang Theory (-1, Troll)

pipingguy (566974) | about 6 months ago | (#45929355)

First there was nothing. Then it exploded.

Re:Big Bang Theory (2)

fibonacci8 (260615) | about 6 months ago | (#45929409)

Or the one about the guy talking to Himself and things started existing.

Re:Big Bang Theory (1)

mbone (558574) | about 6 months ago | (#45929435)

This is really talking about eternal slow roll inflation, so let me fix this for you :

There has always been nothing, and it has always been exploding.

Re: Big Bang Theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929457)

Who said there was nothing?

Are you a religious nutter? Your rhetoric seems to indicate that.

Re: Big Bang Theory (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 6 months ago | (#45929699)

If there wasn't nothing, what was there and where did it come from- or how did it get there?

Are you a religious nutter? Your rhetoric seems to indicate that.

Re:Big Bang Theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929701)

"Nothing" is not the natural state of the universe. "Nothing" can not exist. "Something" is the lowest energy state that the universe can have. There has always been "something" and never "nothing".

Re:Big Bang, rove you wrong time. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 6 months ago | (#45929739)

First there was nothing. Then it exploded.

Correction: Before the beginning there was nothing. The nothing was everywhere itself, filling every possible probability. It was incredibly unlikely that nothing would explode, thus everything did so instantly as far as anyone can tell.

Re:Big Bang, rove you wrong time. (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 6 months ago | (#45929805)

Correction: Before the beginning there was nothing.

Actually, there wasn't any "before" the beginning . . . because the beginning created time itself . . .

Re:Big Bang Theory (2)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 6 months ago | (#45929801)

First there was everything. Then it changed.

Morons (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929381)

Why are those people being paid to come up with this crap? It's not like it will be used for anything.

Lazy fucks should be put to work designing cell phone apps or something.

Re: Morons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929477)

Why do you have fingers when what you type is trash?

Re:Morons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929743)

The multiverse theories werent intentionally thought up. A few people were contemplating some complex equations and it suddenly sprung out at them: these equations say we're living in a multiverse. Even they didnt believe it at first, but math doesnt lie.

Re:Morons (1)

Irate Engineer (2814313) | about 6 months ago | (#45929865)

Math lies like a dog.

Where Hyper-V Supervisor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929393)

So we're all just virtual universes inside a universe server in a rack in a universe farm in some universe hosting site?

Re:Where Hyper-V Supervisor? (2)

Adam Colley (3026155) | about 6 months ago | (#45929439)

It'd explain wave particle duality...

Rendering optimisations.

Words, words (5, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | about 6 months ago | (#45929419)

I think that this is a great article, but...

It is obvious that there are parts of the universe that are not (and never have been) causally connected with our universe.Those are just the parts of our universe we can't see, which are inevitable in an infinite universe with a finite duration and a finite speed of light. You don't need either quantum mechanics or inflation for that, and it has never been called the "multiverse."

The multiverse in my experience means exclusively the idea that there are other parts of the universe with different physical laws. That idea is connected to the anthropic principle, and (IMHO) evading tough issues about the nature of physical laws. (Find the cosmological constant to be inconveniently small? That's OK! In a multiverse there are a gazillion universe with large cosmological constants and no life like ours, ours with a small one and our kind of life, and nothing left to explain!) "We" might think that there is that kind of multiverse, but "we" in this case decidedly does not include "me." (People like me tend to call such ideas "Just so stories," which in physics is an insult.)

Re:Words, words (5, Insightful)

Derec01 (1668942) | about 6 months ago | (#45929667)

I disagree that he's only defined causally disconnected regions; this story actually has a definition of multiverse beyond regions outside of our lightcone. Note one of his later images: a single level 1 universe contained multiple regions which are not causally connected yet are part of the same clump that moved from the false vacuum to dumping energy into matter and radiation.

Any grouping like that is fundamentally isolated because the boundary region that remains in the false vacuum continues to exponentially expand, quickly isolating the clump. Even if the clump itself triggers a conversion of the false vacuum around it, it sounds like the isolation proceeds so much faster that it will be forever isolated by expanding false vacuum regions. With time, we could reach places that are not currently causally connected. It doesn't sound like we could overcome this expansion so easily.

My God... (5, Insightful)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 6 months ago | (#45929459)

I know it's karma suicide to post on something like this saying "I don't get it", but, well, I don't get it.

I've been reading about inflation, multiverses, and whatnot for a very long time at this point, and I like to think that I can give a reasonable explanation comprehensible to nontechnical people. I've come across some articles that were a lot of work to get through, and I've given up on some because I don't have the necessary math.

But this article was terrible. Its grammar is good and not overly complex; it doesn't use a lot of obscure words. It's written like a nice popularization piece, with important parts called out in bold and lots of illustrations. But the illustrations are baffling -- what's that "getting closer to a sphere" four-panel diagram credited to Ned Wright, and where does the text refer to it? What the heck is going on with those diagrams from Narlikar and Padmanabhan? What's with the black space-balls rolling around on the mini-golf course at the end?

I'd wonder if this is a Sokol-type troll, but I don't see anything obviously wrong in it -- there's just a bunch of stuff there that looks like explanations, but apparently isn't. Or maybe I'm just having a bad night.

Re:My God... (2, Insightful)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 6 months ago | (#45929607)

The problem is that this is not science: the theory does not predict anything, and no experience can be done to test it.

In other words, this is faith. Faith is not bad, but there is always something wrong when you confuse it with science.

Re:My God... (4, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 6 months ago | (#45929673)

There are tests for inflation. Depending on the version of inflation in question one can get different predictions, but one major issue is how close to flat the universe is. Another major aspect is the exact behavior of the cosmic microwave background. Study of these issues are both ongoing.

Re:My God... (2, Insightful)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 6 months ago | (#45929777)

I was referring to the multiverse part. You are not going to find a test about the existence of something which definition is that it cannot be observed.

Re:My God... (2, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 6 months ago | (#45929797)

So, you have a testable set of hypotheses. Those hypotheses have non-testable consequences also. Calling those consequences "faith" seems off. For example, consider the following hypothesis "Every state is majority hydrogen." Now, there are stars which are in the process of disappearing from our future light cone due to the expansion of space. This hypothesis which we can get a lot of evidence for also implies that those stars are majority hydrogen. We will never be able to test that. Does that make that conclusion "faith"?

Re:My God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929863)

Yes, because "every" isn't testable unless you limit it, say every star we can observe instead. We take it on faith that the ones we can't observe will act the same as the ones we can, and can make no testable theories concerning them.

Re:My God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929875)

I have to agree here - faith is when you believe something that there is no direct evidence of AND where there is not a reasonably logical path of deduction/induction that suggests it probably does exist even though it can't be directly proven.

My point with all this theorizing about multiverses is why do I care? If it's so far outside of our presence as to be completely and forever unobservable, what value is there in theorising on it? Is it simply to give theoretical physicists the ability to get grant money, or is there some practical purpose to it. You may say that all knowledge is useful, but I see this gradually disappearing from the field of science and more to philosophy or even religion.

Re: My God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929691)

Pretty much describes most modern science related to physics. If you can make a mathematical model, it must be how things work, right?

Re:My God... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929763)

The problem is that this is not science: the theory does not predict anything, and no experience can be done to test it.

In other words, this is faith. Faith is not bad, but there is always something wrong when you confuse it with science.

No, the article is science, the problem is you failed to understand the science, and failed to understand how science, based on theory that CAN be tested, predicted the existence of a multiverse (the kind explained in the article, not the quantum kind or other many-world with different physical laws kind).

While the explanation in the article may not be the best, the core idea is really simple. If you accept that the universe underwent a period of inflation in the past (which left its signature in the microwave background radiation, i.e. testable), and that the possibility that not the entire universe stopped inflating at the same moment (with relativity, the idea that something can happen across the whole universe "at the same moment" is already very problematic).

With these 2 idea, then consider the consequences: SOME region of the universe will stop inflating, and around each of these stopped-inflating bubble, its surrounding region would still be inflating. I.E. the distance between these regions will, for some time, increase TREMENDOUSLY, effectively pushing them so far away that any signal from one will never reach the other until after the heat death of the universe. So, effectively, ALL these regions will be causally cutoff from each other, i.e. we have multiple universe == multiverse.

Furthermore, there would be INFINITELY many of them, because the "in-between" regions are still inflating for a time, the size of those areas will be increased tremendously, and there will be more bubbles inside stop inflating, and each of these bubble will become a causally independent universe. Repeat indefinitely and you have infinite number of universes, all causally independent.

Is this testable? The core idea of inflation is definitely testable by the signature imprinted in the cosmic microwave background. The idea that some regions stopped inflating in a bubble surrounded by still-inflating regions, well, what OTHER ideas can you come up with so the entire universe can go from inflating to non-inflating?

Is this faith? Do you call following the course of logic to the conclusion, even though it seems bizarre, "faith"?

Re:My God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929795)

We perhaps need a new term for these science type ideas that fail to have any actual science. Science fiction doesn't work since that stuff is written as fiction to begin with.

I propose... Sciencelicious. As in, "That's a real Sciencelicious article."

That word calls forth the ideas of both deliciousness and licentiousness. Which are both apt.

No? Hello?

Re:My God... (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 6 months ago | (#45929871)

I'd wonder if this is a Sokol-type troll, but I don't see anything obviously wrong in it -- there's just a bunch of stuff there that looks like explanations, but apparently isn't. Or maybe I'm just having a bad night.

Don't worry, science is ridiculously poor at describing singular events. The creation of the universe is - as we know it - a singular event. That life - and indeed moderately intelligent life - exists on this planet is yet another singular event. It can't be reproduced and so far we've got no evidence that life exists anywhere outside Eartn. Until proven otherwise we might still be the only living thing in all of Creation, though I wouldn't put my money on that.

Generally accepted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929481)

"It's generally accepted that the Universe's history is best described by the Big Bang model"

If the Koch brothers find out a way to make money out of something else, you betcha it won't be "generally accepted". Every morning Fox and friends will howl how ridiculous the Big Bang model is. In the UK Lord High Heels and Suspenders Crazy Pants will address conservative think tanks who drum the table and cry "hear! hear!" Big Media will print stories discrediting Big Bang "to be fair."

Slashdot Trolls challenge: Plant a story that the Big Bang is proof of global warming and watch what happens.

Re:Generally accepted? (0)

c0lo (1497653) | about 6 months ago | (#45929611)

"It's generally accepted that the Universe's history is best described by the Big Bang model"

If the Koch brothers find out a way to make money out of something else ...

You imply the Big Bang is generaly accepted nowadays because Koch brothers managed to make money of it?

Re:Generally accepted? (1)

smpoole7 (1467717) | about 6 months ago | (#45929841)

> You imply the Big Bang is generaly accepted nowadays because Koch brothers managed to make money of it?

Indeed. I had to put my helmet on just to consider that one.

My head still might explode.

I guess that's ok (5, Interesting)

trentfoley (226635) | about 6 months ago | (#45929493)

I mean, I can handle the concept... so long as there's just ONE multiverse.

gravity of the others - dark matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929513)

so your looking for dark matter because its effects are present - look to this mulitverse as your answer - this will fit the model and explain why we have not found dark matter

Take heart, men (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 months ago | (#45929541)

Because this probably means that somewhere there is a universe where desperation is considered sexy and Slashdotters are studs.

In another universe that is a webpage (2)

Arker (91948) | about 6 months ago | (#45929571)

But in this world the link leads to nothing but a teaser blurb and an invitation to blindly execute whatever arbitrary code another server might decide to hand me. No thanks.

Meanwhile, here's another theory. (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 6 months ago | (#45929629)

If you remember a bit of calculus, you right appreciate the idea presented here. This one postulates that time varies according to Mass. We already know that black holes slows down time so...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy47OQxUBvw [youtube.com]

Even if you think this guy's a crack pot, it damn interesting.

what's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929651)

Physicists should kind of be ashamed of themselves to care so much about things like this. It's just mental masturbation. There's not one single thing, practical or impractical that could be derived from the knowledge of multiverses.
Can you visit to them? No
Can you take their energy? no
Can you see them? no
Can you impact them? Maybe but why?
Can you reproduce them? No
.
So why waste your time? Presume it's possible and move on.
Even if humanity evolves and expands into the far reaches of our galaxy. Even if we discover communication or means of travel outside of the bounds of relativity,
even if we rule our own planets and send our only child out to be a god amongst men and give him all of our knowledge crystals.
Why would we ever care about a multiverse?

All you armchair PhD's that make slashdot famous can go on and flame me now. /I do consider a great many aspects of astronomy and research into the very large and very small important, so don't think I'm anti science.

Congratulations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45929733)

....you drank the koolaid.

Um, no. (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about 6 months ago | (#45929775)

The universe is, by definition, EVERYTHING. Therefore, there is no multiverse. There is an array of visible areas. TFTFY.

Misleading summary (5, Informative)

SoftwareArtist (1472499) | about 6 months ago | (#45929893)

It's generally accepted that the Universe's history is best described by the Big Bang model, with General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory as the physical laws governing the underlying framework.

No no no. It's generally accepted that each one of these theories taken individually is the best currently known description within its particular domain. It is not generally accepted that you can just throw them together and get an accurate description of the fundamental nature of the universe! In fact, we know you can't do that because general relativity and quantum field theory are deeply incompatible with each other. People have been working for half a century to find a single consistent theory that can reproduce the predictions of both. They've made a lot of progress, but we're still a long way from having any confidence about what the true fundamental theory is.

The picture of eternal inflation described in this article is plausible based on what we know. But it's still very speculative. That's true of any discussion of cosmology. Our current knowledge is just way too limited to have any confidence about it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...